Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Much as i liked to read the article, the keep arguments do amount only to ILIKEIT., and no matter how many people say that here, it's not a policy based reason, It's not that often I agree with the nom, but his reasons for deletion are correct policy.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. This article essentially is a quote farm that collects a series of quotations from Christopher Hitchens berating various public figures, living and dead.

I looked, and the very long Wikiquote entry seems to have almost all of these already. Any that are missing might be added.

There isn't much analysis, discourse, or reaction concerning these quotations. Most of them just say that Hitchens had something bad to say about a public figure. Longer entries just say that he said so in several places. The only entry that comes close to containing encyclopedia information is the portion on Mother Teresa; since this was forked away from the main biographical article, portions of that could be unforked back.

As a stand alone article, this may also violate the undue weight principle by suggesting that Hitchens was just some kind of troll whose public career consisted of badmouthing people. Of this, I am less sure. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hitchens a troll? Deletion would be absurd.  This man's critiques are more important than his own existence.  -- KenWalker | Talk 07:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. FWIW, I didn't mean to call him a troll, but rather to point out the impression that a page devoted to his invective against specific people created.  He wrote strong prose, he admired George Orwell, and he was on the side of plain English, and that's my side.  The more serious issue is whether this belongs here or at Wikiquote. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a coatrack for attacks on people, many of whom are still living. It seems contrary to core policy and WP:NOTOPINION. Warden (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTOPINION applies to WP editors and not to the opinions (with very good justification in this case - in my opinion) of the people that we write about. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to publish Hitchens' opinions either. There are many such journalists who earn a living by expressing outrageous opinions &mdash; Jeremy Clarkson, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, P. J. O'Rourke, &c.  Their work is exaggerated for effect and is often satirical, tongue-in-cheek, polemical or just plain wrong.  It is quite unreliable as factual comment and so should not be presented verbatim in this way.  By publishing a collation of such writings as reading material rather than to illustrate the author's bio, we are infringing the author's copyright.  This is contrary to the policy WP:IINFO which states "articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents.".   Wikipedia is not Reader's Digest. Warden (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Question? How much is too much at Wikiquote? I proposed transwiki-ing and deleting this because I thought the gist of it could be preserved there.  Much of it seems to be already.  But I have not made a close study of their policies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hitchens is in a totally different league to the other writers that you mention (don't know a lot about P. J. O'Rourke though). The article could be stripped down and then shoehorned into the Christopher Hitchens article but that would be a retrograde step. It is a notable topic in its own right and it therefore should have its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Warden, Wikipedia is not a place to publish Hitchens' opinions either you say -- a) has nothing to do with your NOTOPINION claim, and b) yes we can publis his opinion, when acceptable in the encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up as per the recommendation by the nominator. It is a notable topic that can justify its own article. As already noted Hitchens is far from being a troll and reading the main article confirms this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * COI statement: I am a strong admirer of Hitchens work. 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I'll keep an eye on you. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Keep after clean up. It is a charming intro to an opinionated but sharp mind. It reveals perhaps the need for a new Wiki-project "Wiki-memorials". Shrines which may be freely embellished by devotees, each bearing their favorite citations as votive offerings to the eternal spirit enshrined there. Am sure CH would oppose the religious tones of my quite seriously meant comment.  The project would eliminate the need for NOR restriction.Idealist707 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would strenuous oppose any sort of Wiki-memorial. There are other places out there on the web for that sort of thing. We should keep the project side of WP neutral as we do with the articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ^^ This. No, we should not make Wiki-memorials.  The real issue for me is: is this an encyclopedia article?  Or is it a collection of quotations, for which we have a separate project? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is without a doubt a notable enough topic for WP. I agree that the quotes should be removed and as a critique it should also include the public figures that Hitchens wrote about in a positive light. There is a lot of material that can be added to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a specific policy, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which prohibits such shrines. Warden (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from NPOV, the article is a WP:SOAP and WP:NOTADVOCATE can of worms; from what I see, there was no significant response to the critiques. The article can be summarized in the existing relevant section and all other quotations can be moved to Wikiquote. Brand meister  t   11:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, essentially per nom. As far as I'm aware, we don't do 'list of criticisms of public figures by X' for any other person on Wikipedia. And with good reason: as the nominator notes, this is basically the job for Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Frankly, the very existence of this page raises issues of undue weight and NPOV: why single out Hitchens' criticisms in this way when we don't do that for anybody else? And, if we are going to do that, why does this article include the specific individuals it does? Hitchens criticised hundreds of people, and this article could be many times longer than it is; hence there's an unresolvable POV issue about who to include, which just supports the view that the article itself is a bad idea. Ultimately, this article is redundant to Christopher Hitchens's political views. A selective summary of his views on certain people could be included in that article, but there's really no need at all for a separate article on the subject. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So OK, elsewhere we don't do such an overview. But since Hitchens andserious critiques did, it is an acceptable line of an article. For others, like generals, we do a list of battles &tc. That is NPOV too. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a crucial piece of any coverage of Hitchens. There might be an argument for merging it into a single article on Hitchens, but if we did choose that, the content here is so significant that it would have to be preserved pretty much unchanged. The editorial structure of the encyclopedia though is clearer with this separate, as now. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a list of opinions by an essayist, not an encyclopedia article. His bio and bibliography should describe what is contained in his published works, but we don't need to republish directly every argument the man ever made. Steven Walling &bull; talk   23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I will describe below when !voting: his serial arguments with individuals, often personal, can be lined up in the encyclopedia. Agree, his line of arguments should be published elsewhere, not here (OR). -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Christopher Hitchens - not really sensible as a stand-alone article. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The practice by some Wikipedians to scrub the site of viewpoints they disagree with is flat-out disgusting, and all too common. Hitchens' critiques are an important part of the human historical record, and more than worthy of being indexed, whether you agree with them or not. --Phrost (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not much encyclopedicity in "Hitchens said/wrote so and so", especially when no factual evaluation of his claims is presented. Hitchens isn't some kind of superpundit who stands above all others, meriting a separate page on his critiques. Brand meister  t   23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, Brandmeister. So if the thread through his arguments with a person is published & discussed elsewhere, that is a good reason such an argument be in the Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll cheerfully admit that I'm not a fan of Hitchens, although he was a quite quotable writer.  I'm not even proposing that the quotations be removed from the project entirely.  The only issue for me is whether this is really an encyclopedia article, or something that should be merged to his page at Wikiquote. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete For the same reason as Steven Walling - are we really expected to create separate articles listing the opinions of every journalist/writer? Look at his brother Peter Hitchens' article - his views have been condensed to a single article without the need for a separate one. Why not the same for the elder Hitchens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint91 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag to replace any OR with RS. In his career there are multiple threads with persons. These threads are not alway made explicit by himself or in his books & pieces. But when a serious critique/scholar/publisher points out that thread, that is enough RS (not OR) to merit a description here. E.g. (and missing here): his lines with Blair, Edward Said, Blumenthal . -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete . Long quote farm. Any relevant material may be included in the main biographical article. It would be absurd to have a series of articles on "[Insert political figure, media personality, or public intellectual here]'s critiques of public figures" when that could run into the hundreds or thousands. Best to consolidate all material. Neutralitytalk 08:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 08:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete. I noticed this when first listed and have been keeping an eye on it, so it is time to make a decision. I am a strong fan of Hitchens, but there is no case for this article. Quotes go in Wikiquote. There may be a case for a few quotes to be in the article on him, but how do we decide which quotes? So, there is already a link to Wikiquote. Make sure that all the quotes in this article are there, but that is it. We are wikipedia not wikiquote. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is rather more than mere "quotes". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I came on this page after reading the article about Hitchens, specifically looking for some informations on his public figures critiques, and was glad to see that a specific article was linked to such topic; I believe to be a very "average" wikipedia user, so it is very likely that what happened to me by chance would happen also to many other readers who are not aware of this deletion prosal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.109.78 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (perhaps with a line or two merged appropriately to Christopher Hitchens. Ask yourself: "Is this an encyclopedic topic?" Would something like Bill O'Reilly's critiques of public figures or Michael Moore's critiques of public figures be similarly appropriate? If so, where does one draw the line on who's colorful opinions are encyclopedically appropriate and who's are not? This honestly doesn't meet muster on any grounds other than WP:ILIKEIT... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in my !vote to keep above: the topic is encyclopedic. His line of treating individual persons, throughout his career and publicly, is encyclopedic. All we need is RS not OR about that line. (note: good action to Relist it). -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I just gotta say, I hear all this talk about quotes, quotes, quotes. Just notice that if you delete all the quotes, you still have a pretty substantial article by Wikipedia standards. And yeah, there's a lot more to Hitchens than this but this definitely was one of the most noted parts of his work. --Qwerty0 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.